2026:HHC:33818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1130 and 1240 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.08.2026 1. Cr.MP(M) No.1130 of 2026 Charanjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No.1240 of 2026 Tashi Negi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): M/s B.S. Thakur, Advocate and Heena Chauhan, Advocates in Cr.MP(M) No. 1130 of 2026. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr Ankit Dhiman, Advocate in Cr.MP(M) No. 1240 of 2026. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33818 For the complainant/victim: Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr Bhairav Gupta, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 24 of 2026 dated 28.03.2026, registered at Police Station Dhalli District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 312, 109, 126(2), 351, 115(2), 346, 61(2), 238, 140 (1) and 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. Since both the petitions have arisen out of the same F.I.R, they are being taken up together for disposal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police received a call from Parul Chauhan that her brother was beaten at Mashobra. The police went to Mashobra and found that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63C-2626 was parked on the roadside. The police made enquiries and found that the injured was taken to IGMC, Shimla for treatment. The informant Aryan Chauhan made a statement that he was running a hotel at Tarapur Mashobra. He used to have cash with him. He went to his hotel on 20.03.2026 at about 11.30 a.m. He was 3 2026:HHC:33818 returning to Shimla at about 01.25 a.m. in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63C-2626 to Shimla. When he reached at a distance of 200 meters from the hotel, an Alto car came from the main road and intercepted his car. Two persons, who were wearing caps and masks, came out of the car. One was armed with a pistol, and another was armed with an iron rod. The person with the pistol came near the informant's car and called the other person. The informant reversed his vehicle, and it hit the hill. The person carrying the rod asked the other to shoot the informant. They demanded money from the informant and threatened to kill him in case of his refusal. The informant ran away from the spot. He could not identify the assailants and could read the number of the car as HP-58. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. 4. The petitioners Tashi Negi and Charanjeet Singh alias Bittu have filed the separate present petitions seeking regular bail, asserting that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated. They belong to respectable families, and there is no apprehension of their fleeing from justice. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the 4 2026:HHC:33818 Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 5. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report, reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the police checked the CCTV footage and found a car bearing registration No. HP58A-1965 moving on from Dhali towards Mashobra. The police also found the car bearing registration No. HP-58A-1965 abandoned on the road. The informant made a supplementary statement that he had mentioned three persons wrongly because he was afraid, and there were four persons. He also identified the car as the one used in the incident because it had black bumpers and its front-side rear-view mirror was damaged. The police checked the car and found an iron pipe, which was identified by the informant as the one used to threaten him. The police found that the car belonged to Charanjeet Singh alias Bittu and a fictitious number plate was affixed to it. Police called Charanjeet Singh alias Bittu to the Police Station, who revealed that he had agreed to purchase the car from the owner, Mahinder Singh. He had removed the engine number, chassis number and other numbers from the car and agreed to sell it to the co-accused for ₹10,00,000/-. He had received ₹50,000/- from Munish Verma and 5 2026:HHC:33818 Tashi Negi. The police arrested Tashi Negi, who revealed on enquiry that he had met Munish Verma alias Monu. He had not asked Charanjeet to remove the engine and chassis numbers. His mobile number was inactive on 20.03.2026 from 12.30 p.m. to 03.30 p.m. The police also arrested Munish Verma and recovered an air pistol. Charanjeet Singh made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the chassis number plate and the grinder. He also showed the place from where the registration plates of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58A-1965 were picked up. Munish Verma had shared a photo of a live cartridge of 7.6 mm with Tashi Negi. The other articles were not recovered by the police. As per the report of the medical expert, Aryan Chauhan had sustained simple injuries. The firing mechanism, trigger mechanism, barrel and other operating parts were found present, but the firing mechanism was not found in working condition. The data was also extracted from the mobile phones. Hence, the status report. 6. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Ankit Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner Tashi Negi, M/S B.S. Thakur and Heena Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner Charanjeet Singh, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned 6 2026:HHC:33818 Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, for the victim in both the petitions. 7. Mr N. S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner (Tashi Negi) submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not show any attempt to commit murder. The matter was reported to the police by the informant's sister and not by the informant, even though he was taken to the hospital and was medically examined by the police. The informant has improved upon his version from time to time. The test identification parade was not conducted to establish that the petitioner was involved in the commission of an offence. The police are relying upon the statements made by the accused during the interrogation. Such statements are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to detain the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 8. Mr B.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner (Charanjeet Singh @ Bittu) submitted that the allegations against 7 2026:HHC:33818 the petitioner Charanjeet Singh are that he had removed the chassis number, engine number and other marks of identification. There is no evidence that he was involved in the commission of the crime. The offence punishable under Section 61(2)(b) BNS is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 9. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner Charanjeet Singh had purchased the vehicle for ₹25,000/- and agreed to sell it to Tashi Negi and Manish for ₹10,00,000/- after removing the marks of identification, which suggests that he was party to the conspiracy. The allegations against the petitioners are heinous, and they would threaten the witnesses if released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 10. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the victim, submitted that the police have not carried out proper investigation, but the victim should not be penalised for the 8 2026:HHC:33818 defective investigation conducted by the police. The allegations against the petitioners are serious, and they should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 11. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with 9 2026:HHC:33818 witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through 10 2026:HHC:33818 Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) 11 2026:HHC:33818 “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) 12 2026:HHC:33818 “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 13 2026:HHC:33818 14. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The status report shows that police have extensively relied upon the petitioners’ interrogation to build up a case against them. This is impermissible. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by an accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was also held that the confession made by the co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed at page 568: - 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the 14 2026:HHC:33818 statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 16. Therefore, no use can be made of the petitioners’ statement made during the investigation. 17. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent submitted that the police have also recovered the chassis number plate and a grinder at the instance of Charanjeet Singh, which corroborates the prosecution version. This submission will not help the State because the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the chassis plate and the grinder can only show that Charanjeet Singh was aware of the existence of the broken chassis plate and the grinder, but they will not connect the broken number plates and grinder to the commission of the crime. The prosecution is required to bring independent evidence to connect these articles to the commission of thecrime2. However, there is no independent evidence to show that the chassis number plate was removed from the vehicle bearing registration No. HP 58A-1965 and the identification mark with the help of the grinder. Hence, the recovery of these articles 2 Babbu Versus State of M.P., AIR 1979 S.C. 1042 and Musheer Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 748 15 2026:HHC:33818 would not be sufficient to connect the petitioners to the commission of the crime. 18. The status report also mentions that the police had received telephonic information from the informant's sister. Aryan Chauhan was referred to the Medical Officer. He left for his home after the treatment. The police went to the house of Aryan and recorded the statement. It is not disclosed why Aryan Chauhan should not have made a complaint to the police in the hospital even though the police had visited the hospital to get him medically examined. His silence at the initial instance, when he should have made a report to the police, speaks volumes about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 19. Aryan stated that two persons, armed with an iron rod and a pistol, came to his vehicle and threatened to kill him. He ran away from the spot. The statement does not show that the assailants had used any weapon. The report of analysis mentions that the firing mechanism of the Exhibit E1 was not found to be in working condition. The gun was not even stated to have been fired. Thus, it is not clear how the offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS was invoked by the police. 16 2026:HHC:33818 20. The police have added Section 312 of the BNS, but it is difficult to see how an air pistol, which does not have a working firing mechanism, would fall within the definition of a deadly weapon to attract the provisions of Section 312 of theBNS3. 21. The police did not conduct any test identification parade to determine whether the informant was in a position to identify Tashi Negi or not. The CCTV footage does not show him driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HP-58A-1965. The police built up a case based on the interrogation of the accused, which is not sufficient to connect him to the commission of the crime. 22. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court and no fruitful purpose could be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 23. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 3 Piyus Ekka v. State of Orissa, 1990 SCC OnLine Ori 334 17 2026:HHC:33818 learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioners will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile numbers and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile numbers or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 24. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file petitions for cancellation of the bail. 25. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. 18 2026:HHC:33818 26. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Kaithu, District Shimla, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 27. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 12th August, 2026. Judge. (Ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1 363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2 c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-08-12 13:38:53 RAVINDER KUMAR